Pew v. Gard’s Empirical Analysis
97 F.2d 591 · 1938
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1976
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Williams v. Handschiegl · Coast v. Dubbs · Doherty v. Dubbs · McCreary v. Zworykin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this court, counsel for appellant has presented argumentative matter, technical in character, as a substitute for evidence in an effort to demonstrate that the Board of Appeals erred in holding that a pressure drop of 75 pounds at valve 63 in ap-pellee Seguy’s disclosure would be sufficient to dry the mixture of vapors passing to the vapor phase cracking chambers 22 ‘to the extent required to bring the temperature above the saturation point for the reduced pressure,’ as stated in the counts. * * * * * * “We have heretofore called attention to the fact that counsel for appellant has submitted no evidence in support of his contention, but relies entirely upon arguments, technical in character, to demonstrate the correctness of his position. ■ “ * * * Counsel for appellant having failed to introduce any evidence on the subject, and as it does not appear to us from a consideration of the facts of record and the arguments of counsel that the Board of Appeals erred * * * we must hold that appellee Seguy is entitled to make the claims constituting the counts in issue.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tears v. Robinson““If the involved invention is inherent in Seguy’s [Gard et al., the senior parties'] disclosure, as held by the Board of Appeals, he is entitled to make the counts. The issue of inherency was raised by appellant’s [Pew’s] motion to dissolve the interference [this being analogous to the situation at bar]. Accordingly, the burden was upon appellant, the moving party, to establish that the invention is not inherent in Seguy’s disclosure. Coast v. Dubbs, 88 F.2d 734 , 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1023. See also Williams v. Handschiegl, 48 F.2d 395 , 397, 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1176; McCreary v. Zworykin, 55 F.2d 445 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 990, 997; Doherty v. Dubbs, 68 F.2d 373 , 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 807, 813.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henning v. Hunt
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.